from the reaching-through-the-screen dept

We talk a lot about what advertisements in our age are supposed to be and do, as well as what they aren't supposed to be or do. Ads should be content, fun and engaging content wherever possible. The less annoying an advertisement can be, the better, and attempts to pretend advertising isn't advertising should cease immediately. And, perhaps most importantly, a good advertisment connects with its audience. Or, perhaps I should say kinects with its audience. Check out this Xbox One ad, starring Aaron Paul from The Need For A Paycheck Speed.

Sort of your everyday, run of the mill console ad, right? Well, there's a problem that apparently whoever made this ad didn't forsee. Remember at the beginning of the ad, when Aaron Paul says, "Xbox on!" to turn on his console with the voice activated commands? Yeah, you already know where this is going...

Recently, a thread popped up on popular game forum NeoGAF with member MrPressStart saying, "What the fuck.... Sitting here watching tv and the xbox commercial starring Aaron Paul came on. Next thing I know I am reaching for the controller to turn it off."

Yeah, see, when we want ads to engage the viewer, we didn't mean to suggest that the ad should have an impact on their electricity bills. To be honest, most folks aren't super upset about this. In fact, many people out there find this every bit as hysterical as I do.

The general amusement or apathy over this aside, this does indicate how both device-makers and advertisers are going to have to account for voice activated everything moving forward. An Xbox flipping on while you're sitting in front of the TV is one thing, but the whole voice activated thing is only going to expand, and voice activation may become something which must be accounted for in the future. Advertisers may have to worry about what they're going to turn on and product-makers had damned well better be looking into how to protect voice-activated devices from this kind of inadvertent activation. But for now, just enjoy the thought of Jesse Pinkman turning on people's Xbox Ones.

from the what-a-world dept

There's been plenty of talk about how social media -- and specifically tools like Twitter and Facebook -- have been useful in organizing various protests around the world, but it's interesting to see how other popular tools are being used as well. For example, with the huge protests in Turkey, some of the protesters are using IndieGogo to finance a full-page ad in the NY Times to tell their story to the world. And it worked. Within a day, they'd raised the amount and it's continued to rise since then (and there are still weeks left). The NY Times has already accepted the ad as well. This strikes me as fascinating on a number of levels, because crowdfunding is just a different kind of platform -- and while most people just focus on its uses for buying products -- one of the key features is how it actually builds a community around the project in question. And, as such, you can see how it can also be such a powerful tool for building further community and support around a political campaign of sorts.

from the oh,-george dept

A long time ago, in a magazine far, far too female-oriented for me to read...

It is a period of intellectual property wars. Rebellious forces, striking from the internet, have pointed out several times in the past the hypocrisy of people like George Lucas, who at times jealously guard aspects of their creation despite evidence of his own work being a mixture of borrowed culture.

During these wars, spies managed to link to one possible example of George Lucas borrowing culture for his ultimate movie opening, THE TEXT CRAWL, possibly borrowed from an advertisement that appeared in Vogue magazine several years before the first Star Wars film premiered.

Pursued by the copyright Empires, Prince Geigner raced to post the picture of the Vogue ad, uncertain evidence that even those that embrace intellectual property know deep down the way culture works throughout the galaxy....

As you can see, the boat is way off in the background. And the boat is seen for a grand total of 3 seconds. Yet, the couple got very upset:

"We didn't see the advert ourselves at first, but lots of people kept saying to us: 'Oh, we saw the Badger on the McDonald's advert.' It was quite irritating, especially as we are not fond of fast food and the Badger has a beautiful galley where we cook everything from scratch. We even make our own bread," said Gloria Parsons, 63, who owns the boat with her husband Alan, 72.

"Then one night we were watching something and the advert was on every break, right across about two hours of the programme. Lots of people were very excited to see the Badger on screen, but we weren't. She is very precious and very special to us, and we felt upset that this large corporation would just ride roughshod over our feelings. It wouldn't be acceptable to go into someone's garden and just take a shot of their house, so why use the Badger?

A radio station heard about them being upset and called McDonald's, who agreed to re-edit the commercial without the boat and issued an apology. Of course, in the end, the joke may be on the couple, as their efforts have brought a ton of attention to the original ad and just by judging from the comments on YouTube, people really like the commercial.

from the it's-a-COMMERCIAL dept

Ah, the stories that just make you shake your head in wonder. The purpose of a movie trailer is that it's a commercial. It's a pure advertisement with the math being simple: the more people you get to see it, the more likely you are to get people interested in shelling out cash to see the actual film. As such, you would think that anyone would be thrilled if people are actively promoting that advertisement for you. Not at the Walt Disney company, apparently. After a trailer of the hotly-anticipated Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland hit YouTube, Disney sent a takedown notice to pull it offline. Because heaven forbid people actually want to see the advertisement they put out.

from the what's-wrong-with-it? dept

I wasn't going to comment on Microsoft's new ad campaign featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates buddying around, but the response among the press and bloggers is almost universally negative -- often in extreme ways, and I don't get why there's such a virulent negative reaction. Just a few examples:

And that's just a quick sampling that I grabbed in a few seconds. It goes on and on from there. To be honest, I'm not sure I get this massive negative reaction. The ad itself is a little silly and barely mentions Microsoft at all, but isn't that bad at all.

And, to be perfectly frank, you have to think that Microsoft is thrilled with the reaction. It's gotten a ton more people talking about the campaign than any normal ad program, and it actually does a bit to humanize Bill Gates. And, it fits in with what we've been discussing about how advertising needs to be content first and advertising later.

Also, I'm a bit surprised that none of the commentators seem to be comparing this to the very similar efforts that American Express did four years ago also with Jerry Seinfeld. They created a series of "shorts" somewhat similar to the Seinfeld/Gates episode, and people enjoyed them. Is it just because it involves Microsoft that people react so negatively? Already Microsoft has been able to draw people into the storyline (even if negatively), and it can now use future episodes to continue to entertain and educate. That seems like a good thing, not something to be so widely trashed.